Legal Liability as a GTL

[Eclipse]

Two lashes with a wet noodle, Aux 04, we don't need more of that.

[Pace]

The bickering needs to stop.  Take it to PM if you must continue.  Ned effectively answered the question that started the thread.  If I see one more post about PAWG related to the Katrina mission, this thread is being locked.

[Major Lord]

I think Ned's answer was as solid as they get, especially when considered from the standpoint of CAP, Inc..  I am confident that a JAG could (if they chose to actually respond to the question, which would have its own particular set of attendant liabilities attached) answer the liability question in how it effects CAP, Inc. I would not presume as a prudent person that you have any special exemption from liability on your part as a GTL, or for that matter, as an ordinary CAP member. On the other hand, I have never heard of a CAP member being held individually liable for any action taking place under their auspices as a CAP member. Does anyone know personally of such a case? 

FYI, I was in the Hurricane Katrina AO for almost a year, and saw some things carried out under color of authority that would shock pretty much anyone outside of Teheran, and aside from a couple of Walmart looters, have never heard much about anyone's ( Police, fire, rescue, paramilitary contractors, military, etc) being targeted for legal reprisal for their actions.

Major Lord

[N Harmon]

The Katrina mission brings up a good question though.

If I am from Michigan Wing, operating in Mississippi Wing, or Louisiana Wing, or wherever, the particular laws about duty to rescue, applicability of good samaritan laws, etc. may very well be different from what would be the case in my home state.

Is this something to be concerned about? Should it be part of a mission briefing when you involve people from other wings as to certain particulars of the local law?

[Major Lord]

I downloaded and read the AAR posted above. FYI, you might double check the spelling of our organization's name before you reuse your letterhead.

Major Lord

[Al Sayre]

Good point, Local laws should be part of any in-briefing for those coming from outside the wing.  Although I believe your actions under CAP authority would be covered by FTCA for anything but gross negligence, what happens when you stop to help someone while you are off duty may be an important fact.  Some places you can legally get shot just for knocking on the door,  for example the LOL who threatened the reporters on her front yard in TX a couple years ago.  That's an important thing to know...

[DG]

I think Ned's answer was as solid as they get, especially when considered from the standpoint of CAP, Inc..  I am confident that a JAG could (if they chose to actually respond to the question, which would have its own particular set of attendant liabilities attached) answer the liability question in how it effects CAP, Inc. I would not presume as a prudent person that you have any special exemption from liability on your part as a GTL, or for that matter, as an ordinary CAP member. On the other hand, I have never heard of a CAP member being held individually liable for any action taking place under their auspices as a CAP member. Does anyone know personally of such a case? 
Major Lord

Major,

Good advice and true. 

Query:  Would the response by the Legal Officer be constrained by the fact that the CAP Legal Officer represents the corporation and has an ethical duty to the corporation as the client?

[DG]

FYI, I was in the Hurricane Katrina AO for almost a year, and saw some things carried out under color of authority that would shock pretty much anyone outside of Teheran, and aside from a couple of Walmart looters, have never heard much about anyone's ( Police, fire, rescue, paramilitary contractors, military, etc) being targeted for legal reprisal for their actions.

Major Lord

Major,

Thank you for bringing some professionalism to this discussion.

Further to your concerns, I can tell you that the FBI is still working the problem, and in fact has a priority task force working the many issues that still are active concerns that came about in re Katrina and the local and state response or lack thereof.

Thank God for the 82nd Airborne, for without their work, after they went boots on the ground, the place would have turned into even more of a hell on earth.

[Ned]

Query:  Would the response by the Legal Officer be constrained by the fact that the CAP Legal Officer represents the corporation and has an ethical duty to the corporation as the client?

Only in the almost-unimaginably rare circumstance where a conflict of interest arose in the discussion itself.  In which case the Legal Officer would say that she/he could not give that bit of advice, and why.  And suggest how to get independent advice.

But as a practical matter, the JA is the most qualified person in the world to answer the particular question raised by the OP.

Random anonymous folks on the internet are the least qualified persons in the world to answer the OPs question.  And this thread is a perfect example of why.  (Mostly, you don't get an answer anyway - you get off-topic reponses motivated by God knows what.  And if you did get a response that purports to answer,  you have no idea how accurate it is.)

CAP legal officers are there to answer CAP-related legal questions.  And they do it extraordinarly well.  They are ethical professionals volunteering for their communities.

[RiverAux]

The fact that you are saying that only a legal officer can answer this question says to me that CAP's legal community has failed in their primary job or else the answer would be extremely obvious to everyone in various CAP documents.  Legal officers are quite sparse on the CAP landscape and basically are not available to the average member.  So, if there is any question at all about this basic issue, the lawyers we have need to make sure the answer is known through other methods. 

Now, I'm not saying that they have to put out a document answering every possible nitpicking question that could arise.  We all know that that is an road with no end. 

But the general issue of legal liability for GTLs (or Mission Pilots, or ICS) should not be a mystery. 

Personally, I think the answer is quite obvious as I stated earlier, but you're saying that it is not, therefore, this post.

[Ned]

Sir,

You are normally a little better at reading for comprehension than this post would indicate.

The fact that you are saying that only a legal officer can answer this question says to me that CAP's legal community has failed in their primary job or else the answer would be extremely obvious to everyone in various CAP documents. 

Sigh.

1.  I never said that "only a legal officer can answer this question."  I said that a legal officer was "best qualified" to answer the question, and "gently suggested" that the OP consult his wing JA.  Really.  Take a moment and scan up the thread and see.

2.  I know you enjoy starting threads and finding "failures" in CAP, but it is an intuitive leap to suggest that since someone asked a question for which you feel the answer is obvious, that somehow the legal community has failed.  Especially since the OP does not appear to have asked his question of a JA.  It is hard to imagine that the JA has "failed" to answer a question that she/he has not been asked.

Legal officers are quite sparse on the CAP landscape and basically are not available to the average member.

It's certainly true that most squadrons do not have a legal officer.  Of course, most members will never need to consult a legal officer during their CAP careers.  But they certainly are "available."  I served as a group legal officer and certainly answer dozens if not hundreds of questions from "average members."  But even more importantly, the OP is not an "average member", but a unit commander.  Who is authorized to have his own legal officer on staff, and who certainly has access to rosters that facilitates his access to legal officers at higher HQ.

But the general issue of legal liability for GTLs (or Mission Pilots, or ICS) should not be a mystery. 

I don't think it is a mystery.

But I do think it is a legal question.  And legal questions are best answered by legal officers.

Personally, I think the answer is quite obvious as I stated earlier, but you're saying that it is not, therefore, this post.

I never said whether the answer was obvious or not, I just recommended that legal questions be answered by lawyers, not random anonymous folks on the internet who may not even be members of CAP.

But for the sake of argument,  let's take a look at your "answer":

As Eclipse said, we do have some legal protections and I have never heard of any sort of incident.  But, that doesn't mean that you couldn't get sued, just that you would probably win.

There may also be state laws covering CAP members in certain situations as well.

Your answer is essentially, "Just like the other non-lawyer said, we have some unspecified legal protections.  Sure you might get sued (which could cost you thousands of dollars), but you would probably "win."

Oh, and there could be a bunch of other laws that might help or hinder your case, but I don't know about those."

If the OP finds comfort in your "answer," then I guess we are done. It may be significant that the OP has not requested further clarification.  One available inference is that your "obvious" answer was satisfactory.  Another is that the drift about PAWG and Katrina has discouraged him from further participation in the thread.  Perhaps he consulted with a legal officer.  IDK.

My only point in this otherwise pointless thread was to recommend that legal questions be answered by qualified legal officers.

After all,  if you posted a picture of a suspicious-looking mole on your back and asked whether it might be a potential problem, in this wiki-age you would certainly get some answers.  And, I''d be willing to wager that at least some of the answers would be correct.

But you would be a fool to ask a medical questions on the internet and rely on answers posted by anonymous people with little or no medical training.


Just saying . . .

[RiverAux]

Eclipse had already provided the necessary information and I saw no need to repeat it. 

[RADIOMAN015]

Always a good idea to carry personal liability insurance.   CAP definition of "negligence" & resulting members' personal liability differs greatly with what other volunteer agencies are willing to protect their "volunteer, dedicated, unpaid" members from.  Part of the reason is all of those military "wanna bees" in the organization are using a military model of liability versus a more liberal civilian "volunteer" agency model that understands that errors of omission & accidents will occur with volunteers' efforts.   

Another post regarding CAP disaster relief actions down south showed how problematic things can get.   It's interesting that as Civil AIR PATROL, there's much more training for aircrews in their recon/photo roles after a disaster (Of course that's what we really are here for as an organization).  Checking the Ground Team SQTR (and training informaton on the Nat Hq site) nothing specific can be found regarding disaster relief support training, to include neighborhood welfare check procedures or even the use of GPS equipment.

CAP is looking for more "ground type" missons for its' ground teams to perform.  HOWEVER, the point is that as a GTL IF any mission comes up that you & your team don't have specific "documented" training for (to include most diaster relief missions at the present time), don't agree to take the mission.
RM
 

[321EOD]

FEMA rules prohibited anyone under 18 from participating in DR activities,
anyone had seen, and CAP's acceptance of the missions meant other resources went elsewhere.


Is this true? does anyone have an official reference to confirm?

Under what conditions would this restriction apply (other than CAPs own CPPT considerations - keeping young teens away from gruesome-ness etc)

Would this rule apply in any federally mandated disaster? flood relief, hurricane, tornado damage etc?

thanks

[SARDOC]

The Katrina mission brings up a good question though.

If I am from Michigan Wing, operating in Mississippi Wing, or Louisiana Wing, or wherever, the particular laws about duty to rescue, applicability of good samaritan laws, etc. may very well be different from what would be the case in my home state.

Is this something to be concerned about? Should it be part of a mission briefing when you involve people from other wings as to certain particulars of the local law?

It depends on how the request comes in.  If you are federalized (subject to the Posse comitatus Act) then the sponsoring agency is responsible for liability coverage, if that's the case you should receive specific instructions in your orientation briefing (pay Attention) most of the time if you can articulate your actions are consistent with your training and in the best interest of the mission at hand, you should be okay.  If the Request comes through EMAC (Emergency Management Assistance compact) as a state resource then you need to check with your State Office of Emergency Management to see what is covered in the MOU agreement.